NY Times, SEP & Acedemic Journal bits: SEP Habermas

If I'm a discourse theorist, how do I approach applied moral issues?

Is it too political (political theory) for an individual's ethical system (decisions/actions)?

The Theory of Communicative Action (1984a/1987; German ed., 1981; hereafter cited as TCA)

3.2 Habermas's Discourse Theory

Habermas's theory of communicative action

rests on the idea that social order

depends on the capacity of actors to recognize

the intersubjective validity (truth, between conscious minds) of the different claims

which social cooperation depends.

not only in truth claims about the empirical world,

but also in rightness claims about the kind of treatment we owe each other

Whether or not his pragmatic theory of meaning succeeds,

the discursive (digressing from) analysis of validity

illuminates important differences in [...] justifiable claims.

it is first necessary to understand the general structures of argumentation.
Discourse theory is about pragmatically analyzing an argument as a social practice.

presuppositions - a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action
Basically, an argument isn't all what it appears. One must become, truly understand, the perspective of the argument's proponent. argument as product, as procedure, and as process, which he loosely aligns with the traditional perspectives on argument evaluation of logic, dialectic, and rhetoric.

product - sets of reasons that support conclusions, tied to logical strength

procedure -

process (i) no one capable of making a relevant contribution has been excluded, (ii) participants have equal voice, (iii) they are internally free to speak their honest opinion without deception or self-deception, and (iv) there are no sources of coercion built into the process and procedures of discourse.

Criticism on process, Habermas's highly idealized and formal model hardly does justice to the substantive richness of the rhetorical tradition. One can, however, supplement his model with a more substantive rhetoric that draws on Aristotle's account of ethos and pathos (Rehg 1997).

1) moral discourse - justify norms and courses of action that accord due concern and respect for persons in general

2) “ethical” discourse - focus on questions of the good life, either for a given individual (“ethical-existential” discourse)

Moral rightness claims and empirical truth claims are justified by reasons that should be acceptable to a universal audience, whereas ethical claims are addressed to those who share a particular history and tradition of values.

3) other ethical questions - ones that do admit of universal consensus (e.g., choices of technologies that bear on the future of human nature, such as genetic enhancement engineering)

At the dialectical level, one must meet different burdens of proof by answering different types of challenges. For example, in defending the ethical authenticity of Tom's pursuit of a career in medicine, one need not show that medicine is a career everyone must follow, but only that such a career makes sense, given Tom's personal background, talents, and desires.

One can also examine Tom's career choice from a moral perspective, but in that case one need only show that anyone in his circumstances is morally permitted to pursue medicine.

Takeaways - Habermas defines ethical and moral differently. Discourse theory isn't a simple Google search of understanding away.